Meeting With The Board

[Mediocre Pundit]

First - you can turn upand ask them -second this is to allow fans to ask as many questions as they wish after that they can decide for themselves.

All sounds good Jim but I agree that allowing the board 30 minutes to present their vision for the club and detail the issues and problems that they're having, with it then opened up to questions, would be more valuable. Is there any chance of this?

 

I'll be there either way.

[Steven H]

I think making this happen is a good idea, but t would need to focus on the here and now, not go over old ground about how we got here. I like the idea of some sort of presentation from the board regarding their plans.

 

What will this achieve though? Even if they convinced us that the conflict of interest re Propco would not be used in the way we fear it might, what about the shareholders who have clubbed together on several occassions to block things? Are they likely to be convinced by whatever is said?

 

I'll be there to see if they convince me, but not sure that will help the club if they can't convince the 'failed former directors who hold all the shares'.

[1971]

I thought it was only Tom Hughes and Brown McMaster that were given free shares? Bearing in mind the complexity of all the arguments on here (I can't follow most of them) it doesn't really help when people who are professing a sense of authority on the matters are clouding the issues with non-truths like that (the inference being that he was gifted free shares). If I am reading you wrongly (probably due to the lack of punctuation in your post) then I apologise, but I think it's only fair that if people are going to be criticised then it should at least be fair criticism.

[Willjag]

AC has significantly less shares than the major players at the Club the last time I looked, but seems to me to think he has a big say in where the Club should be going despite being the man in charge during some of the worst decisions ever made made by a Club Board. Do us all a favour Allan, go away and keep your opinions to yourself. You've done enough damage. The worst Chairman in most of our supports living memory.

[Mediocre Pundit]

AC has significantly less shares than the major players at the Club the last time I looked, but seems to me to think he has a big say in where the Club should be going despite being the man in charge during some of the worst decisions ever made made by a Club Board. Do us all a favour Allan, go away and keep your opinions to yourself. You've done enough damage. The worst Chairman in most of our supports living memory.

What he said.

[Fellow Traveller]

At one point we had Cowan as chairman and ex-chairman Hughes, ex-chairman McMaster and ex-chairman Oliver in an active or honorary capacity on the board. There's a thin line between continuity and stability and an incestuous little clique passing control amongst themselves and excluding any fresh thinking. Now that fresh thinking (and finance) has arrived and they've got the boot, they still can't let go.

[Third Lanark]

Congratulations, Matt. May you find there are more important things in life than fighting over the remains of a football club in terminal decline.

Which one Partick Thistle or Third Lanark?

Thanks for your best wishes mate

Edited September 4, 2011 by Third Lanark

[Third Lanark]

To Pat Clarke????? :lol:

 

Joking mate, good luck

No to Clare Sweeney (not the actress who was in Brookside though)

Pat and Damon Gray are the bridesmaids

Thanks for the best wishes mate

[MerryHell]

Would anyone see the benefit of a 'Question Time' style panel?

I was thinking it would be handy to get views not just from DB and BA, but also the JT board, and anyone else relevant to the situation.

I would probably go to the meeting as proposed at present, but dont really see what can be 'solved' by it. You are either going to leave the meeting agreeing or disagreeing with BA and DB, but I don't see how anything could be proposed that would actually better the situation.

I was not a supporter around the time of STJ and many people mentioned in relation to the percieved problems at the club are a mystery to me. I don't have a clue how Springford, McMaster, Oliver, Peden etc. are seen to have contributed to a bad situation in their own way. It's difficult to get an impartial view on each of the 'players'.

Of course, it would maybe just descend into finger pointing and disagreement. However, I would hope that if the club were as close to administration as we seem to have been, that the various parties could try any work together for the good of the club.

Thoughts?

[Vom Itorium]

Would anyone see the benefit of a 'Question Time' style panel?

I was thinking it would be handy to get views not just from DB and BA, but also the JT board, and anyone else relevant to the situation.

I would probably go to the meeting as proposed at present, but dont really see what can be 'solved' by it. You are either going to leave the meeting agreeing or disagreeing with BA and DB, but I don't see how anything could be proposed that would actually better the situation.

I was not a supporter around the time of STJ and many people mentioned in relation to the percieved problems at the club are a mystery to me. I don't have a clue how Springford, McMaster, Oliver, Peden etc. are seen to have contributed to a bad situation in their own way. It's difficult to get an impartial view on each of the 'players'.

Of course, it would maybe just descend into finger pointing and disagreement. However, I would hope that if the club were as close to administration as we seem to have been, that the various parties could try any work together for the good of the club.

Thoughts?

100% guaranteed

[McKennan]

Of course all Jags fans would be welcomed. What I was getting at was that we all get an opportunity to make points and not be forced to sit and listen to the drivel about some people not having a seat on the board etc.

 

Hmm ... just another instance of the club's board distancing itself from the fans. I agree there are weightier matters but I don't anticipate more than blandishments on the day.

[McKennan]

First - you can turn upand ask them -second this is to allow fans to ask as many questions as they wish after that they can decide for themselves.

 

As for concerned "shareholders" sure people are unsure but I will tell you the real "concern" I have is that of the 3 Million Proxy votes 2 Million of which were given for free which in essence have the Club by the throat.

 

Or maybe you mean Mr Cowan the other concerned shareholder ,if by compromise you mean doing as they are told by the old Gaurd then letting the motion be voted down is the better option -ask any ordinary shareholder who went to the meeting if they were had opportunity to ask as many questions of the lawyer from DLA as they wished.

 

At the end of the day the vote was lost -what impact did it have -zero thats right zero -the Club continues,

 

Why would anyone ever think that communicating and trying to engage with your fans is a bad idea.

 

And for the record I agree we are in terminal decline

 

Well, that was interesting. I very much hope to be there, thank you.

 

As to the free shares, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure it was a good idea at the time but it doesn't suit certain people right now so it's a dreadful idea.

 

As to communication, fair point. However, we'll see just how meaningful fan engagement is, won't we?

[McKennan]

At one point we had Cowan as chairman and ex-chairman Hughes, ex-chairman McMaster and ex-chairman Oliver in an active or honorary capacity on the board. There's a thin line between continuity and stability and an incestuous little clique passing control amongst themselves and excluding any fresh thinking. Now that fresh thinking (and finance) has arrived and they've got the boot, they still can't let go.

 

'Fresh thinking' is like 'reform', one of those friendly phrases that ought to be as good as it sounds. I can't help but wonder how fresh the thinking is if the only option is as people all seem to fear: selling off Firhill. Weren't we at selling the family silver under the old guard/gentlemen's club as well? The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

[Fellow Traveller]

'Fresh thinking' is like 'reform', one of those friendly phrases that ought to be as good as it sounds. I can't help but wonder how fresh the thinking is if the only option is as people all seem to fear: selling off Firhill. Weren't we at selling the family silver under the old guard/gentlemen's club as well? The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

 

I don't think I've got a track record of cheerleading for Beattie and Allan or Propco and anyone involved in it. Or of thinking that anything that comes out of Firhill is ever as good as it sounds. They've shown just as little interest in engaging with the fans as previous boards - I've sat in on some of those meetings with Beattie and I've got a pretty clear idea of the contempt he has for any fan involvement that doesn't involve just bowing to his will, so that puts me at odds with him, no matter how genial he is. He's also been on the board long enough to have participated in some fairly dismal decisions.

 

But we're in a jam and I still don't hear anyone with any credible alternative to their control. We can't go back to the old board. If the current board walk away, we're dead by Christmas. What's the third option? The best we can hope for is that they are somehow converted to believing in a club run on a more democratic footing. I won't hold my breath on that one.

 

In the meantime, they pay the bills. And that's quite a radical departure from the debt-ridden whimper that marked the end of the old regime. But unless that's an act of charity (unlikely), they'll be looking to recoup it somehow, sometime. And that's not unreasonable, even if it's unpleasant for most of us to think about. Indefinitely saying to them, "We'll hang on to our free shares and you just keep paying the bills" is not a serious option.

[hebridean jag]

Well, that was interesting. I very much hope to be there, thank you.

 

As to the free shares, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure it was a good idea at the time but it doesn't suit certain people right now so it's a dreadful idea.

 

As to communication, fair point. However, we'll see just how meaningful fan engagement is, won't we?

Nothing to do with hindsight. At the time when the free shares were issued it was a good idea and in principle remains one.

 

The problem was that it was assumed that those chosen for this bounty would hold on to them whilst they were connected with the club and pass them on to their successors on the board when they left. You have to remember that the shares were issued solely to ensure that they remained within the club and would protect us from predatory interests. The problem was that we assumed that we were dealing with Thistle minded people (I do so hate that phrase) and men of integrity who would be happy to pass on the mantle to others. This I presume is why the procedure was never enshrined legally and why we have subsequently been taken advantage of to such a great extent.

 

Something else that has to be remembered is that passions were running high after STJ (1) and having done such a sterling job (and they did) in saving the club no-one could possibly have forseen the legal misappropriation of the shares by those we had trusted.

 

Just as a matter of interest, who are the `certain people` whom you obviously feel have some agenda?

[Munkey]

I'll be there

[Robert Dunn's Potential]

Care to name 'the usual suspects', or are fans who have something to say about the club not welcome?

Dean Keaton, Hockney, McManus, Fenster and Verbil Kint I think

[Allan Heron]

Dean Keaton, Hockney, McManus, Fenster and Verbil Kint I think

 

Loads of 'em around here

[broomhill jag]

I see the proposals which were rejected, last time round will be proposed again on October 7th.

 

What do you think the chances are of the possible open meeting occurring before the next EGM?

Edited September 8, 2011 by broomhill jag

[johnnylambieslovechild]

Im in.

[mojo]

Im in.

Can't understand all the ins and outs of this situation but if I was asked who to trust its no contest. Mcmaster, Hughes actions over the past years have brought the club to it's knees and to resurface from the wilds of Stenhousemuir to prevent guys who are trying to move the club away from the abyss is a disgrace. Questions about Propco are totally invalid because if we don't act now we won't have a club never mind a ground. How about organising a online poll to see what the support outside the JT think of the proposals.

[B.C.G. JAG]

How about organising a online poll to see what the support outside the JT think of the proposals.

What purpose would that serve though - and what if the JT members still wanted to vote against, but the support outside wanted to vote for? Who is supposed to take notice of the result? Would the results be used to lobby McMaster? Who would do the lobbying? How representative would the results even be?

 

The Trust is made up of supporters who have paid their membership and are entitled to have a say in the direction of The Trust. As I've said elsewhere, you can't sit outside the room and then kick up a fuss that no-one is listening to you.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think The Trust's position is set in stone, nor unreasonable, and I agree that it is simply not good enough for DB to say 'trust me'. What if he left and someone else came in from Asset Strippers R US? There would be no chance for the Shareholders, including The Trust to question that appointment. There probably is no other game now other than Propco, but there does have to be some safeguards written in that will protect the football club from predators, and a verbal commitment to that is not enough. I don't think it's too much to ask for. I imagine that the Trust would be more amenable to the proposed changes if those safeguards were written in, but that's just me speculating.

 

If there is a point to the JT, it's that it is a shareholder and does have some minor influence here. The only poll that will actually count are the ones The Trust conducts of it's members, and what happens on Oct 7th. Is that fair? Well, if the Trust has about 600 members or so, that's anywhere between a third and a quarter of regular home attendances. And given that they can't all come from the NW bus, I think it's probably safe to assume that the make up of the membership is pretty representational of the rest of the support (although some stats on that could be interesting).

 

I agree though that all of this is hugely frustrating.

[stolenscone]

What purpose would that serve though

 

 

Erm, it would give the Trust Board an indication of how the general support felt about the issue?

 

I agree that how the Trust Board are instructed to act should be based on the views of Trust members, but you can't honestly say that a supporters' association which votes in a manner that the supporters disagree with is doing its job properly? You can't divorce the Trust Board from the opinions of the support -- to do so is to advocate the kind of ivory tower treatment that has been so often dished out by the Club BoD.

 

What will the Trust Board do to canvass the opinions of its members and all other supporters on how it should vote at the EGM? In short, how will the Trust Board look to obtain a mandate for how it should vote?

 

This issue is of crucial importance to the future of the football club. We have about a month until the EGM. It is essential the supporters know how what their supporters' association intends to do. The Trust is not a collection of half a dozen folk who sit on its board.

[B.C.G. JAG]

I agree David, but that was why I was trying to make a point that the Trust is more than the NW bus and that there are hundreds of members who are able to direct how the Trust votes. They are also supporters, not some wildly separate entity.

 

Anyway, as I said in another post, the Club now need to ensure that they get the paperwork out in a much more timely fashion to allow for legal advice to be taken and EGM's to be held. The onus is also on the Directors to make the case for the motion. I don't think The Trust can do anything until it receives the proposed changes.

[Allan Heron]

I agree David, but that was why I was trying to make a point that the Trust is more than the NW bus and that there are hundreds of members who are able to direct how the Trust votes. They are also supporters, not some wildly separate entity.

 

Anyway, as I said in another post, the Club now need to ensure that they get the paperwork out in a much more timely fashion to allow for legal advice to be taken and EGM's to be held. The onus is also on the Directors to make the case for the motion. I don't think The Trust can do anything until it receives the proposed changes.

 

Actually, there's nothing to stop them arranging and calling the meeting now. No need to wait until such time as they have the detail. That can follow.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Allan Heron